Preface.
I’m an atheist. And my attitude towards my atheism mirrors my beliefs on vegetarianism: just because it makes sense to me, doesn’t mean it should make sense to you. I strongly hold that people will never change their opinions by having others’ opinions forced on them. So I am not going to argue for atheism. If you want to …
Most of the time when I watch anything Sarah Palin has to say, it is for entertainment purposes. I very rarely take what she has to say seriously, but this week in particular she said some really outrageous things on the Bill O’Reilly Show. She was upset about the folks who were protesting the National Day of Prayer – so, Palin said this:
“Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant — they’re quite clear — that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments….What in hell scares people about talking about America’s foundation of faith?” Palin continued. “It is that world view that involves some people being afraid of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square, that’s the only thing I can attribute it to.”
What scares people is that governing from the bible is essentially spitting in the face of this little thing called ‘separation of church and state’. I’m pretty sure that whole idea was important to the founding fathers. Has she also forgotten that a big reason why the English people left Britain for America was the ability to practice freedom of any religion? I highly doubt Palin would be so supportive of mixing the government and religious freedom if a Jewish or Muslim congressman wanted to govern based solely on the Torah or the Qur’an. Freedom of religion also encompasses no religion; so atheists should not have to be subjected to anyone’s religious beliefs either.
I know the founding fathers are up there right under Jesus in Palin’s book, but before we are so quick to jump on the ‘getting back to original founder’s ideas’ bandwagon – let’s just take a moment to remember they didn’t give women or African Americans the right to vote. I love the Declaration of Independence as much as the next person, but it wasn’t perfect.
I know it’s fun to say that we should all love bible, the ten commandments, church, but it is very offensive to those who do not believe in a higher power and it is really, really insulting to the real foundation of this country – the separation of church and state.
John and Cynthia Burke, New Jersey residents, had long waited to adopt children. The Burkes went through the tedious undertaking and had filled out the appropriate paperwork; they dotted all of their ‘i’s’ and crossed all of their ‘t’s’. The couple were well-capable of bringing children into their home and had decided that placement through a state agency would be best suited for their circumstances.
However, their initial request to adopt a second child was denied due to their lack of religious affiliation. Both parties were confirmed atheists and pantheists, respectively and felt that to deter the agency into thinking otherwise would be detrimental to their selection for parenting.
After the initial denial, the courts overturned the rule requiring parents to have a religious affiliation on file (bizarre?) in order to adopt. However, shortly after the approval was reached, the issue was brought to the table through another vein: Superior Court Justice William Camarata. Camarata reversed the decision to allow the adoption because of a lack of belief in a “Supreme Being.” The Justice stated that the child, although very young and of course, easily-influenced, should be allowed to worship a deity as saw fit by the child itself. After the child had initially been approved for adoption, the Court ruled that the child was to be sent back to the New Jersey state agency until further investigation had been attempted through the agency.
The couple (with their first adopted child) now live in Illinois and are still awaiting decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding the adoption of this child. For now, the child remains in limbo, awaiting a fate that solely relies on whether or not the parents are found to be suitable caretakers – which is clearly based upon a religious affiliation or in their case, a lack thereof.
Although the parents are fiscally responsible and according to the Court, “ethical” and “moral”, they are currently being denied the child that they so desperately want because they don’t relate to any specific religious sect.
While I was raised in a religious household and was brought up in a church, I don’t feel that a lack of spirituality on the parents’ behalf should (or would) cause a detriment to a child’s development. I find that the majority of people I know (people that were raised in specific “churches”) don’t embrace the religion that they were subjected to in their early years.
Religion is a dish best served cold. Children should be raised to embrace all paths of spirituality, not just required to follow one particular path. Religion is a tricky topic; individuals often develop and hone their own religious persuasion and adapt and build from what they’ve learned as a child.
For a government who implemented “separation of church and state,” what, eight thousand years ago?, it sure appears that their eating their own notions for dinner.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3498 access attempts in the last 7 days.